The following is the opinion of the poster and does not necessarily represent the views of moonhowlings.net administration.
M-H
Guest c0ntributor: Michael Stafford, author of An Upward Calling: Politics for the Common Good.
At present, America has between 10 and 12 million (or more) unauthorized immigrants. This is roughly the equivalent of the population of Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Illinois. The question of what to do with this enormous population is one of the most complicated, and emotionally charged, public policy issues facing us today. In particular, immigration policy is inextricably linked with demographic change and the diversification of America. It demands a sensitive and sophisticated approach.
On Thursday, June 2, 2011, Alabama’s state legislature passed an Arizona-style immigration enforcement bill. This comes after two unsuccessful efforts at comprehensive reform at the national level under President Bush — and last year with the Graham-Schumer proposal — against the backdrop of an increasingly poisonous debate.
The immigration debate, both in its substantive content and in terms of its tone and tenor, has profound implications for the future of our nation. Richard Land, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has articulated this nexus with particular clarity. Land perceives the danger posed to all of us by the poisoned debate over immigration reform. He has warned that the failure to pass comprehensive reform could “rend the fabric of our society.” In his eyes, “[t]his is a moral issue. It’s an issue that … must be dealt with or it’s going to lead to deep fissures in our society.”1
With the embrace of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 as a cause célèbre by many on the Right, the passage of similar statutes in other states, and the rise of a virulent form of political nativism, the cracks that could, potentially, turn into those deep, society-rending fissures, are already visible. Avoiding this outcome, and securing a better future for our nation is one of the most critical tasks facing us today.
To be continued……
An Upward Calling: Politics for the Common Good is available at Amazon.com and is also formatted for Kindle.
Thank you for reposting! Just yesterday news broke that a local state representative in Massachusetts had said that unauthorized immigrant rape victims *should* be afraid to contact law enforcement- if they were in legal status, they’d have nothing to worry about, and the fact that they are not is their own fault. A few months ago, a local Kansas lawmaker joked about hunting “illegals” like feral swine and shooting them. And these statments are just two examples- others abound. Anyone who loves America, and what she represents in the world, should react with horror to the worldview that leads people to such a dark place. The immigration debate, which I submit to you is one of the most improtant issues facing our country- one that will literally set the tone for the period marking our transition to a more diverse nation over the next 10/25 years- is poisoned. Poisoned by the vacobulary of violence and hate- it is a discourse where people are dehumanized and equated with vermin, with invaders, and in which individuals routinely joke about shooting, mining, blowing up… a population that is largely defenseless, and which includes women and children.
I have been writing about immigration reform for some two to three years now. After reading hundreds of comments, and dozens of articles and news stories, I often think that the Holy Family was fortunate to flee from Herod into Egypt, rather then across the Rio Grande without a visa.
I was not always a supporter of reform- the absence of any other viable policy alternatives, and, more importantly, the ugly hateful language directed at undocumented immigrants during the debate over reform in 2007 opened my eyes and led me to reassess my position. I also explored the what my faith had to say about this issue- about the individual and corporate responsibility to welcome and care for the stranger, the outcast, the refugee. And it has led me to a very different place today.
I hope that some find my case for comprehensive reform and earned legalization compelling and persuasive. And I am certainly looking forward to the discussion.
Hmmm, so this wouldn’t be the right place to discuss my “launch-em-back-over-the-border” catapult idea, would it?
I notice the sentence about S.B.1070 being a cause célèbre for the Right. Let’s not think of this as Right vs. Left, but rather Right vs. Wrong.
Casting Sen. Russell Pearce, the man who proposed SB 1070, as the champion of goodness in your battle of Right vs Wrong is a mistake, I think. He’s on the other side.
All last week much of the news, when not on the subject of Anthony Weiner, addressed the near bankruptcy of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There were dire warnings of SS running out in 2037 and we are told that there will be only 2 workers for ever SS recipient by then.
It seems to me that we need more workers. Why not put immigration reform to work for us? Win/win situation.
More workers for what jobs? Who is hiring?
@emma
For starters, seasonal work and agricultural work is always hiring. There’s a start. This figure was also a projected figure. It doesn’t have to happen next Thurs. Plan for these workers.
The debate’s poisonous; the politics is stalemated. So, enforce the f***ing law !!!!!!!! Of course the atmosphere is angry and many of us have rock-hard positions; the real arguement here is about whether our government elitist “leaders” answer to us or not.
There are two ways forward : status quo, or law enforcement that doesn’t reward illegal immigrants.
There used to be a pretense that there was “another way forward”, that Hispanic birth rates and/or continued integration would make “comprehensive reform” a political winner, but it should be obvious to all that that is not a reality, but a political fantasy being sold to a Latino voting bloc. It’s been obvious to me since 2007. The issue of “comprehensive reform” is being set out and manipulated by Democrats so that they can exploit a voting bloc with it, as the GOP does with the phony issue of “let’s outlaw abortion”.
Meanwhile unemployment is at 10%, and I cal b***s***.
We need more workers, huh? Supply-Side much? The problem is..what kind of workers? My point is that the flood spilling across our southern border may (just may) not be replete with Doctors, Scientists, and Engineers.
@Slowpoke,
All of immigration needs reform. The labor need doesn’t match immigration policy. Who says all immigration comes from across the southern border?
You mistakenly think my references to immigration reform was some sort of open borders statement. I can assure you it was not.
For example, PWC uses exchange teachers on 3 year visas. One of them has a husband who couldn’t get a green card for over a year. Why? No reason. Just immigration glitch. So here is a person unable to work who is a professional electrician. It just makes sense to have things mesh better. Now this excellent teacher must return to her country because that’s it. The visa is up. No exceptions. Some of this just makes no sense. (She is from a European country.)
enofrce the law- sounds simple dosen’t it. And its so easy to type at a keyboard or shout at a rally. But… have you ever considred how many additional resources would need to be committed to identifying, locating, detaining, and removing the equivalent of the population of Ohio or Pennsylvania, spread out across the entire United States? How do you plan on paying for *that*? Where would we get the necessary resources from? What oppertunity costs would there be? Frankly, I’d rather keep programs like WIC in the federal budget than devote additional billions to hunting down unathorized mushroom house workers, lettuce pickers, and dry wall installers. Even if the border was hermetically sealed, at the current rate of enforcement (which has been stepped up markedly under Obama) it would take over 3 decades to remove all our unathorized immigrants. And the border will never be hermetically sealed- not with a wall, not with anything. A mere look at the map will tell you that. So for my part, I’ve decided to avoid the slogans and focuse on actually crafting policy soultions that may work. Also, think about this: might the issues surrounding enforcement and application of the current law be indicative that that law is out of touch with realities on the ground? Immigration reform does not mean open borderes- earned legalization does not mean an amnesty. We can’t have an honest debate if we corrupt the language.
@mikeS
Unfortunately, politics has become intellectually dishonest because we have somehow allowed them to become one continual repetition of meaningless sound bites.
Thanks for bringing language back to the process–an exchange of ideas beats sound bites any day!
Automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. makes illegal immigration very attractive. Because people are willing to make great sacrifices for their children, many are willing to come to the U.S. at great risk and hardship, secure in the knowledge that the problem (from their perspective) is self-correcting for the second generation. Since illegal aliens are not fully under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (i.e. their entry was not officially sanctioned), there are grounds to repeal birthright citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. Such a measure would essentially remove the motive for coming here illegally and would drastically reduce the magnitude of the influx.
Kelly, I would say that most illegal immigrants I have met have been more interested in working and feeding their families than looking to the future. I don’t think that repealing the 14th amendment would really do much to stop illegal immigration.
I would also be very careful about messing with the 14th. Too many other court decisions are linked to it.
Repealing birthright citizenship is one of those things that “sounds” so simple and so attractive when you first hear of it, but which, if you think about it, is the first step on a disastrous path. Consider…
While some people do come to America to secure citizenship for children- it does happen- that is not the primary force driving most migration here- economic factors (as security) drive most of that. So while amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship might deter *some* people from coming here unlawfully, it would have no impact on the vast majority.
But it would have some huge consequences- it essentially sets up intergenerational illegality. A permanent underclass living outside the law, in the shadows. That is a horrific vision of the future, especially when we consider the moves afoot to deny “illegal” children access to education. And that’s just one example.
That’s not a vision of America that I want to see come to fruition.
I also have to note the immense irony in the Right- which, according to Fox News and Glenn Beck- is the home of Patriots that love the Constitution, wanting to take a pair of scissors to the 14th Amendment.
@ Moon- one of the best lines in literature is in Alice in Wonderland, it captures the whole problem with words and meanings:
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.'”
We’ve got quite a few Humpty Dumpty’s abroad in our world today!
And to think Lewis Carrol aka Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was a mathematician and logian.
woops meant (and security)
Moon, your comment in #10 about the electrician brings up a point about immigration – there are professionals such as this man who, once they arrive, may not be able to use their training or education because it is not considered to be “on par” with the US.
My example: A good friend of mine from Baja, Mexico married a US Citizen. Came in this country, got his green card, and eventual full citizenship. Carlos held due degrees in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering at the BS level. Unfortunately, in the US, his degrees he earned in Mexico did not “translate” as compatible schooling. It did not deter him from moving along through the last 22 years to jobs where his education did work for him in the end.
Point being that when looking at immigration reform, this issue of professional skills via education or training should not have that stigma of being “not on par”. A test for certification would be proof enough….especially since this Country is so “certification crazy”.
Unfortunately, Mike S., past attempts to address the illegal immigrant problem already on the ground have seemed always to carry with them a major flaw: the failure to attend to the porous border (illegal crossings) and to our poorly managed immigration controls (overstayed visas and cumbersome visa approval systems) as major causes of the entire problem. We try to fix the immediate problem on the ground. We think we have made progress. And then we find that we are right back at the starting place because the numbers have increased in even greater magnitude. We have become the fools who engage in trying to clean up the aftermath of a flood and who somehow forget to plug the growing hole in the dike. We always wind up with an even larger flood that demands even greater attention.
Each time that “solution” sequence is followed, we wind up in a situation where the responding attitudes and tempers become angrier and the opposing sides become more hardened against each other. Logic and history would say that, if you continue to follow such a path, there will come a point when those attitudes and tempers are beyond control and may well spill over into civil strife.
I have no problem with attempts to deal with the current problem on the ground in an equitable way. But I will most certainly demand that, after having made the kinds of concessions (e.g., The Dream Act) which will enable the solution of current problems, I will not have to wake up tomorrow and find that we have the same problem once again, only in even greater magnitude. This is no longer the country of wide open spaces and a place where any immigrant can find his safe and comfortable niche. We are in a new historical era in which we are beginning to rub against each other in ways which are often very irritating and contentious; and, in terms of economics and cultural differences especially, there is less and less “elbow room” as a way to avoid conflict.
I think you might find that one of the greatest causes for anger among many of those on the opposite side of this issue from yourself is not necessarily the illegal immigrant himself but, rather, a government which either does not respond to the problem in ALL its contributory aspects or, when it does claim to be responding, turns out to be inept at best and devious at worst. And another cause for anger is when the two major parties begin to discuss ways in which they can secure the “Latino vote” or any other ethnic voting bloc. Somehow those efforts always seem to be comprised of ways to make concessions to the particular bloc without all encompassing and solid solutions which will satisfy all sides. And the quite natural reaction from the rest of us will always be that old line: “So, what am I? Chopped liver?”
Look at this post as one of the many reasons why the contemporary “Tea Party” came into being.
@Wolverine,
Actually I have not heard one solution about illegal immigration from the Tea Party. What are their suggestions?
Actually, comprehensive immigration reform will not be possible until the expression ‘amnesty’ is used correctly. Anything short of lining up illegal immigrants and shooting them in cold blood is seen as ‘amnesty’ by a certain faction of our society. We need to agree that earned citizenship or paper work that involves fines and meeting certain criterion and paying taxes is not amnesty.
Issues like overcrowding and neighborhood problems are a result of class clash, not illegal immigration. Quality of life issues cannot be confused with immigration issues. ‘Illegals’ becomes code if we don’t separate the issues. It isn’t an easy thing to do.
I could favor some type of comprehensive immigratibut reform, but not until the borders are made less porous and incentives for future illegal immigration are removed (e.g. no social security/welfare benefits, no automatic birth right, no path to citizenship for future illegal aliens).
Remember that Reagan granted amnesty to illegal aliens, which was supposed to be followed by legislation to close the borders and discourage future illegal immigration. The amnesty took place, but the other measures did not. I will not support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants until those tough measures are instituted.
I am not an opponent of comprehensive immigration reform in principle. But I am against it
practice until the federal government shows that it can and has fulfilled its responsibilities to control the border and prevent future illegal immigration.
If you want my support for comprehensive immigration reform, then you should work hard to secure the borders as was first promised in 1986.
Kelly, you just outlined the impossible. How very flexible of you.
How do you seal a border that is over 2000 long, just on the southern side. I don’t believe that even includes any parts of the ocean. It isn’t possible.
I doubt seriously if the 14th amendment is going to change.
I would be happy to exchange voting rights for those who came here illegally in the first place. It is very expensive to jump through all the hoops to attain citizenship. Most people would probably just like to become permanent residents. That would take the entire voting argument out of the issue.
Moon — The answer from the “Tea Party” has been pretty clear to my way of thinking: do something about the influx and then we can talk about how to handle the rest. I think that the “extreme” solutions you may hear from time to time are not so much literal as they are frustration and outrage at the failure of government to fix the problem at its very root. If that ever happens and the immigrant population is brought more or less to a position of manageable stabilization, you won’t hear much anymore about the “extreme” solutions. At least from the likes of me you won’t. Well, maybe in Alabama or Arizona but not as much in Virginia and other places.
In fact, I am seeing such a result from where I sit right now — caused not by improved immigration control but by the bad economy. Not more than a couple of years ago, when this town was being hit big time by demographic changes, the place was in flames. Comes a bad economy, accompanied by a natural limitation of the influx and an outflow of some of the new immigrants in search of work elsewhere or actually headed back home, and the rhetoric diminishes remarkedly. According to our own Neighborhood Watch informal census, our own community’s new immigrant population has pretty much stabilized. And the inter-ethnic hostility has lessened immensely — almost non-existent now or at least limited to mundane issues.
One thing which really bothers me is a tendency to look at our border and throw up the hands in despair, claiming the job is simply too difficult or too costly. Puts me in mind of a Dwight D. Eisenhower looking at the heavily fortified and garrisoned Normandy coast and declaring that the task was too difficult and too costly to even attempt. I prefer an America in which Eisenhower gives it a real try or in which a JFK declares that we will put a man on the moon no matter what it takes. When did we lose that kind of determination?
Lastly, we have to agree to disagree on that view about local problems being a clash of classes vice a clash between cultures. In our case it was mixture of both into one. I say this after more than five years of fighting the battle to keep up community standards. It was the social class of the new immigrants which caused the problem, primarily because of differing attitudes toward standing laws and rules and a lesser knowledge of things such as public health. You cannot imagine the difficulty we had, for instance, in teaching the new arrivals that you do not store household garbage on your patio or throw it curbside in flimsy bags in violation of county law and HOA regulations. I actually got pretty good in fractured Spanish at explaining about invasions of rats and rodents and about attracting the other wild critters in a county which ranks at or near the top in verified rabies cases. We have largely won that battle, but it never fails to errupt again when a new immigrant family moves in. Problem is that so many of them speak Spanish but cannot read it very well — or they just don’t bother to read what they may get. So, I would have to say that it is a combination of new immigrants plus the social class of many of them.
@Wolverine
I am trying to find an acceptable way to respond. There are people who are born in the USA many generations who also need that kind of community training. The last set of real jerks in my view in my neighborhood were as white as I am. That didn’t keep them from parking in front of other people’s driveways, putting garbage out without benefit of cans, shooting off fireworks that landed on the neighbors’ roofs, playing music on kill until 4 am, and having the yard unmowed and 40 toys lying in it. If you confronted them some old redneck woman flew at people using language unheard in most seaports.
I suppose I don’t think that comprehensive immigration reform aka rewriting most of our laws really has much to do with having to deal with cultural clash. I think it would help it.
Certainly the Dream Act would create more middle class people so I am all in favor of it.
I am not sure what it is we want the government do to. They cant just invent laws without congress being involved.
A couple thoughts- the comprehensive reform plan that Sen. Harry Reid put forward (rather late in the day, and which went absolutely nowhere) had some very detailed metricts on border security/internal enforcement that had to be met before the earned legalization program kicked in. If my memory serves, so did teh Graham/Schumer proposal- indeed, one of its key concepts was biometric ID cards and improved document security that would *greatly* assist with internal enforcement.
It’s also worthwhile to mention perception and reality- there is a perception that the gov’t does not enforce immigration laws- but that perception does not square with reality. Especially since 9/11, the budget for border security and internal enforcement has gone way up- additional resources have been directed to these areas. Internal enforcement was up under Bush, and its gone up even higher under Obama. But… there is a limietd pot of resources. As we make prioritization decisions, how much do we decide to spend on the border and on internal enforcement? Where do these things fall among a host of competing priorities? And, even if we devote additional resources, do we target, say, narco or human traffickers, or security for port container facilities, or tracking overstays and visa violaters, or… or what? Money spent doing one of these things does not necessarily address the otehrs. That’s why, in the end, all the calls of “seal the border,” “enforce the law,” “send them back”– its just empty sloganeering. It is divorced from reality. The next article in this series has some very detailed budget numbers and projections on what ramped up internal enforcement would cost- and its a heck of a lot.
First of all, there is the war of definitions. Undocumented immigrants? Really? The correct term is illegal alien. That is the actual legal definition of those that cross our borders illegally or overstay their allotted time. And when you have 12 million illegal aliens within the country they ARE invaders. Invaders are those that enter a country without invitation.
Also, the 14th Amendment has to be CLARIFIED, not repealed. According to historical interpretation, including statements by its author, citizenship DOES NOT apply to those born to illegal immigrants. We need a court case so that we know what the rules of the game actually are.
Why are the calls of “enforce the law” just empty sloganeering. I guess state troopers are going to stop handing out tickets. I mean, they aren’t going to stop speeding. The alternative is to ignore the law of the land, ie, what we have now. Yes, enforcement is up. So is influx. Why can’t businesses be forced to use E-verify? Why are business penalized as discriminatory if they see the same person with a different ID from the last year if they don’t hire them? Why don’t apartments demand more stringent ID? As a census taker, I found ENTIRE BUILDINGS with illegal immigrants. Or rather, spanish speaking, furtive, not answering the door until we said, “Government!”, decline to answer ANY questions, people. In many cases, I watched as a second person from an apartment that I had contacted would go throughout the building, knocking on doors and telling them that I was there. From then on, no one would answer a door. And all those that I contacted, including those that were reluctant to open doors, were from south of the border. So, no, not ALL illegal immigrants are Latin. Just 80-90% of them.
Every single illegal immigrant is using false ID to get a job and living space. They are breaking the law.
“As we make prioritization decisions, how much do we decide to spend on the border and on internal enforcement? Where do these things fall among a host of competing priorities? And, even if we devote additional resources, do we target, say, narco or human traffickers, or security for port container facilities, or tracking overstays and visa violators, or… or what?”
Well, what ARE we spending $1.5 trillion dollars in deficit spending on? The answer to the above is MORE. As you said, PRIORITIZE. But, maybe we can do without a little cowboy poetry subsidies and put that money where its constitutionally authorized, enforcing our border.
Lastly, the difference now, is that illegal aliens AND recent immigrants, seem to refuse to assimilate. See the controversy over the teaching of American history in Arizona and Texas. Certain groups want the teaching of Texas history to be more neutral. because it offends Mexican immigrants. Guess what? You move to Texas from Mexico as an immigrant, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BECOME TEXAN. Multiculturalism is a failure. Arizonan students had demonstrations because the school boards realized that the “Latin studies” were teaching subversion and were canceled. When “immigrants” start demanding that their host country become more like their former home, they are invaders.
Cargo, you response really should be an oppositional post. It is definitely comprehensive.
Let’s start with prop 1.
Does it matter what terms we use? Is the term ‘undocumented worker’ inaccurate? More socially correct? Less negatively charged than ‘illegal alien?’ I do know that immigrants don’t like being called ‘aliens.’ It makes them think of ET. So why say things that are hurtful?
We don’t use the same language used constitutionally about slavery as we once did. That’s why the Congress skips reading that part now.
Using the term ‘ invaders’ is rude and suggests that there is far more organization involved than there actually is.
Can we admit we have a problem with illegal immigration without deliberately being hurtful?
Prop 2 14th amendment
It says what it says. ‘Born’ is pretty explicite. What it sounds like you want is for an activist court to put their own interpretation on the word ‘born.’ I would say it is what it is.
Prop 3 Cargo said:
Why can’t businesses be forced to use E-verify? Why are business penalized as discriminatory if they see the same person with a different ID from the last year if they don’t hire them? Why don’t apartments demand more stringent ID?
I thought you were the guy who wanted less govt? Who is going to force businesses to use e-verify? Then who is going to enforce that the businesses not hire anyone w/ a questionable e-verify?
Not all illegal immigrants are breaking the law with false ID. Some have a TIN. Those are quite legal.
I can see the FAIR crowd has somehow gotten to you.
It depends on where you live what percent of illegal immigrants are Latino.
The term “illegal alien” comes out of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(law) ) and was used in this country as the natural term for this state, for generations. The term “undocumented immigrant” is a recent invention and part of an effort to blur the lines of law. So many of us will resist using it.
@ Cargo- actually, you are mistake about definitions. No one who actually practices immigration law uses the term “illegal aliens”- the correct terminology we ude is “unauthorized immigrant” or “undocumented immigrant”- the former term is probably the best because it captures within its ambit visa overstays and others who have fallen out of status, but who entered with inspection. I might also point out that the term “illegal” as used in immigration is inaccurate, because being in this country without a valid immigration status isn’t a crime under our laws.
Re: 14th Amendment- Oh, I’m sorry, clarified… lol… so instead of scissors, you’ll just be taking a red pen to it… how patriotic. I thought the Tea Party loved the Constitution so this leaves me a bit confused. And by clarified you apparently mean- changed to mean what we want it to mean, the jurisprudence developed by the Courts notwithstanding.
Multiculturalism, a failure? Interesting. I’d argue our ability to accomodate diverse populations is a major national asset- a point of strenth that differentiates us from peers like Japan and Western Europe. And a more diverse future is coming- demographics have a unique inexorability to them. I’d wager that frightens you- indeed, I think it is behind much of the hysteria over immigration.
Invaders. Zounds. A veritable horde at the gates. First they came with their Taco Bell and the litte dog with the Spanish accent, next Dora, next.. my god anything could be next. Do you feel at all silly analogizing people just looking for a better life, including women and chidlren, with “invaders”? And do you percieve the danger in talking about largely powerless and defenseless human beings in such a way- how it sets up talk about “locking and loading” about hunting them like feral swine, about mining the broder. How is such a mentality consistent with what makes America a special place and a beacon to the world?
Multiculturalism is just another one of those coded words.
Anyone who has been to the southwest can see with their own 2 eyes that mulitculturalism is alive and well. Cities like Albuquerque, Tucson, Santa Fe, Flagstaff, Phoenix, El Paso, San Antonio…the list goes on…speak to our multiculturalism that just springs up automatically.
Go to an Indian Market such as the one in Santa Fe, or one of the many food districts in any of those cities, look at the statues, pay attention to the names. Multiculturalism is quite alive and well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355961/Nicolas-Sarkozy-joins-David-Cameron-Angela-Merkel-view-multiculturalism-failed.html
Apparently we need to define multiculturalism before we decide if it works or not. Certainly what the article spoke of was different that what I was speaking of in the above paragraph.
Degrees…degrees.
@Moon-howler
Code words? Code words for what? FAIR? I actually don’t know who they are.
Multiculturalism, as opposed the the melting post, balkanizes societies. When I speak about it, I’m talking about the immigrants who refuse to become citizens and still have allegiance to a foreign country. I’m talking about immigrants that demand that American history and customs not be taught, be discounted, etc.
Smaller government -Yes. While doing its job. What forces businesses to do anything now? Why is E-Verify a special case? And why WOULDN’T a business want to verify its employee’s legal status? Some illegal immigrants have a tax ID number? Then why are they still in this country? If the gov’t knows that they are here illegally, deport them.
@Mike S
Entering the country is breaking any laws? Really? Then why do we have border enforcement? Why do we penalize those that hire illegal immigrants?
As for the 14th, From Wikipedia:
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power;
and:
During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[7]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
“subject to the jurisdictions thereof” needs to be clarified. Are illegal aliens subject to our jurisdiction or are the similar to tourists or diplomatic personnel? I have not said that it DOES NOT. I have said that it has not been clarified. Personally, I don’t believe that children born to illegal aliens should be granted citizenship. That awards illegal activity. But, if its found to cover ALL that enter our country, then what prevents children born to tourists from being citizens?
Multiculturalism is a failure. See the balkanization of Europe. When the immigrants decide that their culture should be the dominant one, the basic underpinning of life and culture, you lose national identity, if only in enclaves. See the Muslim attempt to make sharia a normal part of life within European and American cultural and legal systems.
The condescension drips from your writing. Frightens me? No. But countries and cultures and ideas are always in competition. Assimilation vs multiculturalism is a major competition. When immigrants identify with their former countries instead of becoming American, then multiculturalism fails the country.
“Invaders. Zounds. A veritable horde at the gates. First they came with their Taco Bell and the litte dog with the Spanish accent, next Dora, next.. my god anything could be next. Do you feel at all silly analogizing people just looking for a better life, including women and chidlren, with “invaders”?”
Again, the condescension….
You expect to win over those skeptical of your open borders mindset with that? YES. INVADERS.
in·vade
–verb (used with object)
1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor’s home.
4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.
6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens.
7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
8. to penetrate; spread into or over: The population boom has caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs.
Yep. Invaders. If all had entered at once or even the course of a year, what would you call it? Are they armed invaders? Some of them. Do some mean harm? Yes. Do many claim ownership of territory? Yes. Are they entering without permission? Yes? What else would you call it? And just because they are seeking a better life, its ok? Why then do we have any immigration system at all?
Yes. Reform and simplify our immigration system. Tighten the border. Simplify enforcement laws in America. Make it easier for companies to verify citizenship or legal status. Make it uncomfortable to be an illegal alien in America.
One thing that I think would be great? Build “Ellis Islands” on the border. Big processing centers. Tell Mexicans that they have x number of years for this deal. C’mon up, BUT, they will be immigrating. NO dual citizenship, no staying a Mexican in America. Bring your families. Everyone becomes an American. After that time period, deal is over.
This will allow those that wish to work in America to come here legally. We process them. We bring their families so that a) no more money needs to be sent to Mexico b) lessen the ties to Mexico.
I bet Mexico either improves the status of its poor or it has a revolution.
And finally, while you may USE other terms, the legal definition of those that enter this country illegally is ILLEGAL alien or ILLEGAL immigrant.
From http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/illegal-immigrant/
An illegal immigrant is a person who has entered the country without official authorization
From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/alien
alien 1) n. a person who is not a citizen of the country. 2) in the United States any person born in another country to parents who are not American and who has not become a naturalized citizen. There are resident aliens officially permitted to live in the country and illegal aliens who have sneaked into the country or stayed beyond the time allowed on a visa.
@Cargo,
We probably have to agree on a definition of multiculturalism. I don’t think we are speaking of the same thing.
No one seems to mind Swedish weekends in Oregon or Minnesota. Food, customs and music all provide fund. People honor their heritage and perhaps learn about someone else’s.
Immigrants can try all they want to push their culture….those of us who are here take what we like and when it gets to be too much, we push back.
@Moon-howler
“Immigrants can try all they want to push their culture….those of us who are here take what we like and when it gets to be too much, we push back.”
And yet, when we do, WE’RE the bigots. We’re the insensitive ones that refuse to accept “reality.”
America has a long history of bigotry. Perhaps that is the only way some people know to push back.
Looking at the history of the country, that is pretty much how it has been–a new group comes in and tries to co-exist with the established group. The established group finally draws a line in the sand.
I am in the middle of rewatching Centennial (Mitchner). I saw it many years ago and loved the series so I decided to rewatch. Its an interesting study in bigotry, not unlike today.
As long as there is a political prize to be had, namely control of government, multiculturalism seems to me to be an iffy proposition, especially if the contrasts between the different cultures are very distinct; perhaps even in opposition on something as basic as, let us say, religion; and possibly with a history of conflict from the past. I see very few cases in which multiculturalism has had a long life unless one of the cultures is in overwhelming numerical and political control. Switzerland is perhaps an example of where it does work. But I see more often the Flemish-Walloon conflict in Belgium; the breakup of Yugoslavia into warring parts; the quick post-Marxist separation of the Czech Republic from Slovakia; renewed insistence on a greater degree of political separation between Scotland and England, among others. Even more stark are the failures of Europeans to create artificial states in Africa, for instance, where tribal and religious differences have led to disastrous bloodshed of the most terrible kind. I was nearly killed myself in a breakdown of artifical multiculturalism which led to violence between religions, with the sought after prize being central power.
I just do not see multiculturalism lasting long-term except in the most extraordinary circumstances. It seems to me that such multiculturalism should not go on much past the immigrant generation itself and that future national survival depends heavily on assimilation or the “melting pot” kicking in effectively as it did once in this country already. I am not concerned here with “festivals” to celebrate the old country culture but rather with the need to prevent the different cultures from isolating themselves from each other for much longer than the immigrant generation. If the lines become hard after that, a nation could face some real unity problems in my opinion.
That is one of the reasons why I support efforts to stabilize the influx of different cultures as a first priority. I think we need some breathing room to get used to each other, and that is hard to come by if one or more of the incoming cultures are constantly being reinforced by numbers out of the control of the formal immigration system. Then we wind up with a renewal of fear in the established culture or cultures that they may be destined to be overwhelmed at some point in the future. We need breathing room. We need time to adjust and to work on the assimilation of the first generation of the incoming cultures; and that can be difficult if we are faced with continuing waves and a perceived loss of control over the process.
Mike,
Moonhowlings did an entire thread on the disgusting relationship between between Senator Russell Pearce and the Nazi JT Ready. ANY LAW that EVER has a tie to a man who supports a Neo Nazi should raise a red flag for any human being.
I just returned from San Jose and was intrigued by the differences there in demographics. Lots of Indians and Asians and you know what, I could have cared less!
Back in 1924 Wolverine, the Johnson-Reed act was passed. Guess who were the biggest supporters of the Legislation…………….the KKK. To understand the evolution of our immigratin laws are critical in my opinion.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5079/
America, in my opinion, is not a theory of race but of ideals. I want the “ideals” of America to not only survive but to thrive. Sandra Day Oconnor has launched a new emphasis on civics and I believe THAT focus on education is critical to the survival of our country. It is, and always has been, the second generation of immigrants that have found their new identity as assimilated Americans.
Do we need immigration control, well, yes, but we also have to recognize that our largest influx of immigrants revolves around our labor needs. Many of those undocumented immigrants left when the housing bubble burst.
I agree, Elena, that the influx of immigrants should revolve around our labor needs. In previous generations, especially in the middle to late 19th century, we actually advertised intensively for immigrants to come because we needed them for our factories, mines, and farms. That same rationale can still apply to some extent when we have jobs which really do need personnel, even though the economics have changed radically.
However, I think the mistake we have made is that we have lost control of the quantitative aspect of the influx of foreign labor. This has left us in some instances with a rivalry between the immigrants and those already here for certain types of jobs, e.g. construction and allied trades, and, when the economy starts to decline, rivalry among the new immigrants themselves for jobs which become more scarce.
In my opinion, the answer is essentially simple but still complex of resolution: control the influx and target it more closely to our actual labor needs. Failure to do that can mean that you are not just creating a new and essentially uncontrolled layer of immigrants but also a new kind of unemployment problem which puts greater fiscal pressure on the entire system and then breeds anti-immigrant sentiment. Other factors may also come into play to complicate the problem. It is true that, if employment declines, some immigrants may return to their countries of origin. But, if I am a jobless Mexican immigrant father right now in America and I look at what is going on in Mexico today, I think I might prefer to stay here and try somehow to survive in any way I can on the natural largesse of the American social safety net, hoping that a job comes around soon. When you do that, however, you run smack dab once again into the resentment of the citizenry.
Wolverine,
How do you resolve that the same arguments are used today that have been used for every immigrant influx? Immigration is a fascinating subject for a country borne of immigrants!
I have been reading an amazing book on a holocaust survivor who emmigrated from Israel to America in the 1950’s. He loves this country, but also addresses the failure of immigration when many people in Europe were dying because of our “quota” system.
Sounds like an interesting book, Elena. What rationale did he give as an actual Holocaust survivor for leaving Israel and settling in America instead? Seems to be in some ways a reverse of many of the stories one reads of that era — Golda Meir, for instance.
I can see his arguments about some of the consequences of the American immigration quotas in the 1930’s. The “Ship of Fools” will ever be a signficant human tragedy and a stain on our own history. I think all of us may have scratched our heads at how FDR could have made such a decision in that case and how the politics and economics of the Great Depression could have overcome what one would have expected to be the natural empathy of a man who might have been rather electorally comfortable in his own power. But that is all retrospect.
Another factor may be, in my opinion, that we Americans have been historically very slow at buying into warnings that ultimate evil is out there and actually has a chance of gaining an upper hand. I wonder how many Americans predicted in any way the coming of the Holocaust in Europe? Such a warning would probably have left most of us incredulous and ultra-skeptical. Even in 1945, I think many of our military could hardly believe their eyes when they liberated the concentration camps. One of our units actually went berserk and summarily executed the remaining German guards when they discovered a camp full of starved and murdered Jews. I am reminded along this line of Winston Churchill trying to warn the British people and government of the coming Nazi onslaught and being cast aside as somewhat of a nutjob and conspiracy theorist.